Online content collaboration model

ABSTRACT

A collaborative editing model for online content is described. A set of suggested edits to a version of the online content is received from multiple users. Each suggested edit in the set relates to the same version. The set of suggested edits is provided to an authorized editor, who is visually notified of differences between the version of the content and the suggested edits and conflicts existing between two or more suggested edits. Input is received from the editor resolving conflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in the set. The first version of the content is modified accordingly to generate a second version of the content. Suggested edits from the set that were not accepted nor rejected and are not in conflict with the second version are carried over and can remain pending with respect to the second version.

CROSS-REFERENCE

This application is a continuation application of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 11/955,188, U.S. Pat. No. 7,797,274, entitled“Online Content Collaboration Model”, filed Dec. 12, 2007, by W.Strathearn, et al., which is incorporated by reference herein in itsentirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to editing online content.

BACKGROUND

Increasingly the general population is turning to the Internet toquickly find information on a wide range of topics. Some web sitesprovide content for free, although are of questionable reliability.Other web sites have credibility to provide authoritative information,but may require a fee to access the information. Typically onlinecontent can only be edited by the publisher of the online content. Forexample, the latter web sites referred to above generally cannot befreely edited. However, some web sites provide an open editing model,where anyone with access to the content may add content or edit existingcontent. If there are no restrictions on who may add or edit content,the credibility and quality of the content may be diminished. Thewebsite www.wikipedia.org is an example of a somewhat open editingmodel. Content included in www.wikipedia.org can be written and editedin a simple markup language using a web browser by any Internet user.

SUMMARY

In general, in one aspect, the invention features processes, computerprogram products and systems for editing online content. In general, inone aspect, the invention features methods, systems and computer programproducts for providing a collaborative editing model for online content.User-created online content is received, being a first public-facingversion of the content. A set of suggested edits to the online contentis received from multiple users. Each suggested edit in the set relatesto the first public-facing version. The set of suggested edits isprovided to an authorized editor of the online content. The editor isvisually notified of differences between the first public-facing versionof the content and the suggested edits and is notified of conflictsexisting between two or more suggested edits. A conflict exists if afirst suggested edit cannot co-exist with a second suggested edit. Inputis received from the editor resolving conflicts and accepting orrejecting suggested edits in the set. The first public-facing version ofthe content is modified based on the set of suggested edits and theinput from the editor to generate a second public-facing version of thecontent. Suggested edits from the set that were not accepted norrejected and are not in conflict with the second public-facing versionof the content are carried over for future editor input accepting orrejecting the carried over suggested edits in relation to the secondpublic-facing version of the content.

In general, in another aspect, the invention features a system providinga collaborative editing model for online content. The system includes adata store, a suggested edits module and an editing module. The datastore is configured to store user-created online content. The suggestededits module is configured to receive a set of suggested edits to theonline content. The set of suggested edits is provided by multiple usersand each suggested edit relates to a first public-facing version of theonline content. The editing module is configured to provide the set ofsuggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content. Theediting module is further configured to visually notify the editordifferences between the first public-facing version of the content andthe set of suggested edits and of conflicts existing between two or moresuggested edits. The editing module can receive input from the editorresolving conflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in theset. Further, the editing module can modify a first public-facingversion of the online content based on the suggested edits and the inputfrom the editor to generate a second public-facing version. The editingmodule carries over suggested edits from the set that were not acceptednor rejected and are not in conflict with the second public-facingversion of the content for future editor input accepting or rejectingthe carried over suggested edits in relation to the second public-facingversion of the content.

Implementations of the inventions can include none, some of all of thefollowing features. Additional input can be received from the editor,the input being additional edits to the online content. The secondpublic-facing version of the content can be further based on theadditional edits. The authorized editor can be the author of theuser-created online content or can be a collaborator designated by theauthor. A search query can be received for online content satisfyingcriteria specified by the search query, and it can be determined thatthe user-created online content satisfies the criteria. The user-createdonline content can be provided in response to the search query. If inputis received from the editor to hold a suggested edit, the suggested editcan remain pending with respect to the second public-facing version ofthe online content. A conflict can be detected between a first suggestededit and a second suggested edit and the editor can be notified of theconflict. Additional input can be received from the editor providing aresolution to the conflict.

Providing the suggested edits to the editor can include providing amarked-up version of the online content showing the suggested editsrelative to the first public-facing version of the online content.Providing a marked-up view of the online content can include showingdifferences between the first public-facing version of the onlinecontent and a previous public-facing version of the online content.Comments can be received appended to one or more of the suggested editsand the comments provided to the editor. A reply can be recorded fromthe editor to at least one of the comments. An entry to a discussionthread can be received associated with the online content.

The invention can realize none or some of the following advantages. Thecollaborative editing modeling described allows for input to onlinecontent to come from a wide range of sources, while providing editingcontrol to a smaller, defined group of authors and collaborators.Keeping editing control in the hands of a defined group of one or morepersons provides some assurance as to the quality, consistency andcredibility of the online content.

The details of one or more implementations are set forth in theaccompanying drawings and the description below. Other features will beapparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of an example system providing acollaborative editing model for online content.

FIG. 2 is a schematic representation of an example search serverproviding a collaborative editing model for online content.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing an example process for collaborativelyediting online content.

FIGS. 4A-C show example user interface screen shots for linking two ormore user-created online documents.

FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of an example computer system.

Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Techniques, methods, apparatus and a system for editing online contentare described. In particular, a collaboration model for editing anonline content item shall be described. In one illustrative example, theonline content item is a user-created webpage that attempts to be the“best answer” for a query provided to an online search engine. Such anonline content item is referred to herein as a “knol”, although othernomenclature can be used. The knol can include text, pictures, video,maps, and/or embedded applications. The knol can be owned by an authorof the knol. However, other users can be authorized to edit the knol,i.e., collaborators, or to suggest edits, as is described further below.Although the description below is in relation to knols for illustrativepurposes, it should be understood that the techniques, apparatus andsystems described can be used to collaborate in relation to anytext-based online content item.

A knol can be created by an author voluntarily of his or her owninitiative, or can be created in response to an invitation to create aknol on a particular topic. For example, a search engine such as theGoogle search engine available at www.google.com by Google, Inc. ofMountain View, Calif., may display an invitation to a Google user tocreate a knol that can provide an answer to a query frequently receivedby the search engine. In one implementation the invention can betriggered when a user inputs a search query into the search engine andthe search query has been identified by the search engine as a commonquery for which a knol is desired. Other trigger events can exist, andthe one discussed is an illustrative example.

In one implementation, an author creates a knol using a knol userinterface that is hosted by a search engine provider, for example,Google, Inc. Creating the knol through the knol user interface canprovide consistency in the manner in which the knol is created.Additionally, the knol can be identified as being a “knol” whenpresented with other search results in response to a search queryreceived by the search engine. For example, in one implementation, asearch result that is a knol has a distinctive appearance in a searchresult set, and may either be mingled with other search results oridentified separately, e.g., in a separate box or otherwise identifiedas “knol” results.

The knol user interface can provide a page viewer. A knol can appearinside a frame that shows the knol content, the author, contributors(i.e., non-author users that contributed content to the knol) and searchand navigation tools can be provided to facilitate use of the knol.

A collaborative editing model can be provided wherein the owner of aknol (i.e., the author), author-designated collaborators and others cancontribute edits to the contents of the knol. A knol has a public-facingversion, which is a current version that is publicly available forviewing. The owner of the knol is authorized to apply edits to the knolcontent that effect a change to the public-facing version of the knol.The owner can designate one or more collaborators with permission toalso apply edits to the knol content that change the public-facingversion of the knol. Other than the owner and the collaborators, no oneelse can change the public-facing version of the knol. However, otherscan provide suggested edits to the current public-facing version of theknol. The owner and the collaborators can then decide whether or not toaccept or reject suggested edits, as is described further below.

In one implementation, any person who can publicly view the knol contentcan provide a suggested edit. In another implementation, an entityhosting the knols, for example, Google as described above, can restrictsuggested edits to persons that have registered with Google, therebyauthenticating, at least to some degree, that the suggested edits arebeing made by a human being, rather than an automated spider or thelike.

The collaborative editing model provides flexible editing capabilitiesto any authorized editor, e.g., the owner 102 or a collaborator 104. Aset of suggested edits accumulates with respect to a first public-facingversion of the online content. That is, each suggested edit in the setis an edit to the same base version of the content; the edits are inparallel with one another. After a set of suggested edits provided bymultiple different users has accumulated, an authorized editor canreview the set of suggested edits and has the flexibility to pick andchoose which edits to apply to generate a modified second public-facingversion of the online content, subject to conflicts between edits. Bycontrast, if the edits are provided in series, meaning that eachsuggested edit accumulated relates to the base version+the last receivedsuggested edit, then each suggested edit builds on and is thereforedependent on a previous suggested edit. If such a scenario, if theauthorized editor decides to reject a suggested edit, then he/she cannotaccepts any downstream suggested edits either, as they were built on therejected edit. Editing flexibility is thereby curbed. In the systemdescribed herein, because the suggested edits all relate to the samebase version, the suggested editor is not restricted in what he/she mayor may not accept by an earlier decision to reject a particularsuggested edit. The authorized editor is provided with a visualnotification of the suggested edits as compared to the firstpublic-facing version of the content (i.e., the base version) and isnotified of conflicts between two or more suggested edits. Conflictnotification and resolution is described further below.

Referring to FIG. 1, a schematic representation of an example system 100providing a collaborative editing model for online content is shown. Anowner 102 can provide knol content 120 to a search server 101. Users ofthe search server, for example, users 106 and 108, can provide theirsuggested edits 112 and 114 respectively of the knol content 120 to thesearch server. The suggested edits 112 and 114 can be accessed by theowner 102 and one or more collaborators, e.g., collaborator 104. Theowner 102 and collaborator 104 can provide edits 122 and 126respectively to the search server 101, thereby modifying thepublic-facing version of the knol content. A user 110 who enters asearch query 116 into the search server can receive a set of searchresults 118 that may include the knol content 120, depending on thesearch terms. In other example systems the search server 101 can bereplaced by two or more servers, each providing a sub-set of thefunctionality referred to above.

In the example system shown, only the owner 102 can provide knol content120. However, in other implementations, the owner 102 can permit others,e.g., the collaborators 104, to provide content as well. The owner 102can have certain authority that other authors or collaborators are notgiven, for example, the authority to change ownership, invite/disallowcollaborators, publish or unpublish the knol content, permit or denyadvertising in conjunction with the knol content, specify the recipientsof advertising revenue if advertising is permitted, and/or change theterms of a license of use of the knol content to name a few examples.

An edit includes one or more modifications to the content of a knol andcan include a brief explanation of why the modification was made, orother comments about changes to the knol. If a user has authorization tomodify the knol, i.e., is an owner or collaborator, then the user'schanges to the knol can take effect to the public-facing versionimmediately. Otherwise, if the user does not have authorization, thenthe user's edits can be retained as a “delta”. The delta can be placedin a suggested edits module where an owner or collaborator of the knolcan review the delta and decide to merge or discard the suggestion. Anedit suggestion (i.e., an unmerged delta) does not modify a publicfacing version of the knol. In other implementations, any user can editthe public-facing version of the knol content, and can access suggestededits received from other users.

In one implementation, knol content can be edited using an in-line HTMLeditor. The functions of the editor include: text editing functions; adisplay of visual differences (mark-ups) between two versions of asection; and a display of suggested edits.

Referring to FIG. 2, a schematic representation of the example searchserver 101 of FIG. 1 is shown in further detail. The search server 101is shown to communicate with the owner 102, collaborator 104 and users106 and 110 over a network 202. The network 202 can be the Internet, awide-area network, local-area network, or any other network providingfor electronic communication between the parties.

The example search server 101 includes an interface 224 forcommunication with the parties over the network 202. The user interfacefunctionality available to one party, e.g., the owner 102, may bedifferent than the functionality provide to another party, e.g., theusers 106 and 110, as is described further below. A suggested editsmodule 204 is provided to store suggested edits provided by user, e.g.,user 106. A pending suggested edit is referred to as a “delta”, and thesuggested edits module 204 includes deltas 206 a-n. An editing module208 provides editing functionality to the owner 102 and anycollaborators, e.g., collaborator 104. A conflict detection/resolutionsub-module 210 is provided to detect conflicts between two or moredeltas and to resolve the conflict, as is described further below.

A data store 212 includes knol content 214 and editing information 218.The editing information 218 can include revisions to the knol content,comments appended to revisions, edit logs and the like. In someimplementations, discussion threads 220 can be appended to knol contentand included within the data store 212, as is discussed further below.Author pages 216 included in the data store 212 provide informationabout authors of the knol content, and are described in further detailbelow.

A search engine 222 receives and responds to search queries, forexample, the search query 116 of the user 110. Search results areprovided, for example, search results 118 in response to search query116. If a knol exists in the data store 212 that corresponds to thesearch query, the knol can be provided within the search results 118.

In other implementations, the functionality provided by the searchserver 101 described above can be distributed across two or more serversin electrical communication with the network 202, either directly orindirectly. Other configurations of search servers 101 and thecomponents thereof can be used, and the search server 101 of FIG. 2 isbut one example.

Referring now to FIG. 3, an example process 300 for an owner orcollaborator of a knol to review suggested edits and modify the contentsof a knol is shown. The owner or collaborator enters into an edit modewith respect to the knol (Step 302). For example, a knol user interfacecan be provided to view the knol, and an “edit knol” control can beselected by the owner or collaborator. The owner or collaborator canthen be requested to enter a user name and password, or otherwiseidentify themselves, such that they can enter the edit mode with theappropriate access entitled to them on account of their status as anowner or collaborator.

The owner or collaborator is provided with all suggested edits that arecurrently pending with respect to the current public-facing version ofthe knol (Step 304). That is, any suggested edits that were input byothers since the owner or any collaborator last entered the edit modeand changed the public-facing version of the knol are presented, as wellas any suggested edits that were carried over from a previous version,which shall be discussed further below.

The owner or collaborator can view the suggested edits, for example, inthe order in which they were received. For each suggested edit, theowner or collaborator can select to accept the suggested edit, rejectthe suggested edit or hold the suggested edit (i.e., neither accept norreject) (Step 306). The suggested edits can be presented to the owner orcollaborator in a mark-up mode, for example, showing deletions asstrike-outs and additions in bold, underlined and/or in a contrastingcolor. The mark-up shows the differences between the suggested edits andthe current public-facing version of the knol.

Once there are no further suggested edits to review (“No” branch ofdecision step 308), the owner or collaborator optionally can inputadditional edits of their own (Step 310) or can end the editing process.Upon ending the editing process, the public-facing version of the knolis modified (Step 312).

If the owner or collaborator chose to hold one or more suggested edits,then the held suggested edits are carried over to the next version ofthe knol. That is, if the current public-facing version of the knolbefore the editing session is “Version 1”, and the public-facing versionof the knol after the editing session is “Version 2”, then the heldsuggested edits are now pending with respect to Version 2 of the knol.The owner or a collaborator can then, perhaps at a later time, make adecision whether to apply the carried over suggested edits to Version 2or to reject them altogether.

In one implementation, each suggested edit can be applied like a layeron top of the public version. Visual highlights or strike-out mark-upscan indicate sections of the text that have been removed or added. Themark-up can be color-coded to an author that made the suggestion.

In one implementation, a conflict resolution feature is provided suchthat an owner or collaborator can resolve conflicts as between twodifferent suggested edits. For example, the conflictdetection/resolution sub-module 210 can provide the conflict resolutionfeature. A first delta (i.e., unaccepted suggested edit) may include anedit deleting a sentence. A second delta may include an edit to changethe wording of the sentence, but not delete the sentence. The two deltasare therefore in conflict at least with respect to this particularsentence; the owner or collaborator can only accept either the first orsecond delta, but not both.

The conflicting content can be presented in a distinctive manner toindicate the conflict. The owner or collaborator can be required toresolve the conflict before continuing to edit the knol. In thisparticular example, the conflict can be resolved by: (1) rejecting bothdeltas; (2) accepting the first delta and rejecting the second delta; or(3) rejecting the first delta and accepting the second delta. If theconflict as between the first and second deltas is limited to only aportion of the one or both of the two deltas, i.e., one or both deltasincluded other suggested edits that were not in conflict with eachother, the conflict resolution can be limited to just the conflictingportion of the deltas. That is, if the second approach above is taken,the second delta can be rejected only insofar as the conflict, and thesuggested edits in the balance of the second delta can be accepted orrejected by the owner or collaborator, as they see fit.

A conflict detection mechanism (e.g., conflict detection/resolutionsub-module 210) can be employed to detect conflicts between suggestededits. In one implementation, the conflict detection mechanism uses amodified version of a three-way merge algorithm. A typical three-waymerge algorithm looks for overlapping edits to content and assumes thatif there is overlap there is a conflict. Even if the overlap region isonly a relatively small portion of the overall two edits, the entire twoedits are flagged as being in conflict. By contrast, the modifiedthree-way merge algorithm applied here can reduce the region identifiedas the conflict region to the actual content in conflict. Further, therecan be an examination of the conflict region to determine whether anactual (rather than assumed) conflict exists. That is, it is possiblethat two overlapping edits make the same edit to a word to correct for aspelling error. In that case, there is in fact no conflict, as bothedits can be accepted.

An optional comment can be appended at the time of rejection or approvalof a suggested edit. In additional, any comment appended to a suggestededit can be replied to by the owner or collaborator. An edit can remainin an edit log and be marked as accepted or discarded. In one examplethe edit log is included in the editing information 218 in the datastore 212. All edits that contributed to the current public facingversion of the section can be listed. In the case that the edit was theresult of accepting suggested edits, those suggested edits can be listedas “children” of the authoritative edit (i.e., the edit of the owner orcollaborator). At each editing step, an “undo” operation can besupported, such that any previous version can be reverted to.

In one implementation, when someone other than an owner or collaboratorenters an edit mode to make a suggested edit to the knol content, thatperson is not privy to other suggested edits already within the“suggested edits module”, and/or comments attached to earlier or pendingsuggested edits. That is, the person can only input their suggested editwithout viewing editing history, pending edits, etc. In anotherimplementation, such a person can view the pending edits in thesuggested edits module at the time of inputting their own suggestededit. However, their edit will be relative to the current public-facingversion of the knol, not relative to any pending suggested edits in thesuggested edits module. In other implementations, only certain personsthat are neither an owner nor a collaborator are authorized to viewother edits and/or an edit log, history or edits, etc., and would haveto authenticate their identity before being granted access to the otheredits.

In one implementation, a person editing a knol can compare any twoversions of the knol content, or a section thereof, and see theadditions and deletions that were performed in order to bring the olderversion toward the newer version. These additions and deletions can berepresented with mark-up that is similar to the suggested edit mark-up.In some implementations, another view can allow the entire knol to behighlighted in colors corresponding to the ownership of each word in thedocument, where ownership can be defined as the person who added aparticular word into the document.

In some implementations, discussion threads can be attached to a knol(see 220, FIG. 2). The threads can be searchable, filterable (by date,author, etc.) and generally viewed in reverse chronological ordering ofthe last time the discussion thread was created or any reply was made.In some implementations, comments and edits to a knol are searchable byexplicitly searching knol comments, but they do not themselves come upas web search results.

The knol user interface can provide a page editor. In an edit mode, theauthor and authorized users (e.g., collaborators) can modify page-levelproperties and rearrange components within the knol. For example,subject to permission limits, the page editor can be used to edit metainformation about a knol. Examples of meta information that can bemodified using the page editor include: page name, authors list, boolindicating allowed contributions, permissions, creative-commons leveland revenue sharing strategy. In one implementation, the metainformation can be modified inline or in a separate page. The metainformation can be displayed as simple key/value pairs in a form.

In one implementation, in addition to meta information, otherinformation about the knol's table of contents or section arrangementand configuration can be edited. By editing the table of contents, theunderlying sections can be adjusted accordingly. For example, a newsection can be inserted at a selected position in the table of contents,a section can be deleted from the table of contents or a section can bemoved (e.g., dragged and dropped) within the table of contents.

In one implementation, a paste operation can be used to create a knol.For example, text or other content can be pasted from a clipboard as atransclusion (live feed), as a template (inherit the template of theoriginal) and/or by copying the content.

The knol user interface can provide a history of the knol. That is, theknol's revision history can be viewed, including, information about whomade each revision and how much they changed. The differences betweentwo versions of the knol can be viewed, showing the changes (“diff”)made as between the two particular versions. The history can be used torollback to a particular version of the knol. In some implementations,only the owner and collaborators can view the history of the knol. Inother implementations, persons other than the owner and collaboratorscan view history, either all other persons or else certain personseither identified by name or meeting a certain criteria.

In one implementation, the knol user interface is implemented using amixture of Jotscript, client, server and translucent javascript and XMLplug-in components. Jotscript and the server-side jot library can giveaccess to features such as page and data transclusion, inheritance,search, templates (applying “styles”) and forms (applying particularviews and interaction-affordances upon a page). Pages can be storednatively in XML with XHTML in the “main/text” property of a node. A nodeis a container of properties.

There can be three categories of pages: knol pages, author pages andadmin pages. A knol page can include all of the properties constitutinga knol including edit nodes (i.e., suggested edits to a knol page) anddiscussion nodes (i.e., pieces of dialog about a page). An author pagecan include all of the properties describing an author (i.e., anauthorized user), and tool and administration pages for authors. Theauthor's tools can be anchored off a knol page, which itself describesthe author. Admin pages can include tools for trusted administrators.Each page type can have a set of forms, where a form behaves as a filterselecting subsets of the page for display and providing affordances formanipulating parts of the data. In some implementations, authors andauthorized users are not permitted to write javascript or server-sidejavascript. Rather, they are restricted to particular data formats andplug-ins.

As mentioned above, a node is a container of properties. Objects can bestored in nodes. The following is a description of some objects that canbe stored in nodes to implement the knol user interface. A knol can be anode of user-created content visible as a web-page or as a transclusion.A knol can have other knols transcluded as sections within the knol.Knol metadata can be a node associated in a one-to-one relationship witha knol and includes metadata about that knol. For example, relatedknols, discussions, edits and authors can be included in knol metadata.A write to a knol increments the knol's user-visible version number, buta write to a knol metadata does not.

An author can be an abstract class that can own and create knols. Anauthor is represented as a node including author-specific properties(e.g., permissions, preferences, etc.). An author can be associated in aone-to-one relationship with an author-knol, where an author-knol is anautobiographical knol used as a home-page for that author. A group canrefer to an author that aggregates other authors.

A message is a node including text that is written by another author andthen sent to another object where others can find and transact with it.A discussion is a note posted as a reply to a knol or to anotherdiscussion item. An edit is an attempt to modify the content of a knol.An edit-response is sent by an author in response to an edit, e.g.,accept, reject, discuss, etc. An offer is an attempt to grant ownershipor permissions to an author. An offer-response is an author accepting ordeclining the given offer. A request-review object can be an authorsoliciting a peer review. A request-review-response object can be anauthor accepting or declining a peer review. If accepted, the review canbe done as a discussion or knol object.

The nodes discussed above can have none, some or all of the followingcommon properties. A path property can be a path to a page. A nameproperty can be a page's name. A revision property can be a page'srevision. An i.d. property can be a page's i.d. A user property can be auser. A time property (or editTime property) can show when the page wasedited. A createTime property can show when the page was created. AcreateUser property can show who created the page. A main/text propertycan be xhtml content of the page/message.

A knol can have a unique URL, e.g., {site}/{title}/{author_url} wheresite is a website (e.g., knol.google.com), the title is the knol's titleand the author_url can include an author name and/or disambiguationnumber. Past versions of a named document can be retrieved by appendinga revision CGI argument, e.g., “?revision=42”. A URL including arevision number can be usable as a permanent historical link. Changingthe title of a knol can imply renaming it and changing its URL. If anauthor's name changes, or if a page is transferred from one author toanother, that can result in renaming all of the author's page URLs. If anodeID is specified, e.g., “?nodeID=4747”, the nodeID can be persistentacross renaming operations. In one implementation, a hit against the{site} can be resolved into a search for {query}/{author}, where thequery and author can be soft/incomplete matches. Internally, knols canrefer to each other using the nodeID field. In other implementations,the knol can have a permanent URL that can be a machine readablesequence of pseudo-random alphanumeric letters permanently associatedwith the knol irrespective of any later changes to the knol's title orownership.

The main/text property of a knol supplies the knol's content. Thecontent may in turn include transcluded knols, which may or may not havetheir own, different authors. Consider the following illustrativeexample. A Mrs. P is the Dean of Astronomy, Astrology and Cosmology at acertain school. She wishes to author a knol on Dark Matter. Mrs. Pcreates the knol and then creates three knols transcluded as sections,calling them Chapter A, Chapter B and Chapter C. Mrs. P adds Mr. K asco-author of Chapter A, Mr. G as co-author of Chapter B and Mr. R asco-author of Chapter C. The co-authors in turn delegate the actual textwriting to graduate students. Mrs. P is well on the way toward producingthe knol in her name on the subject of Dark Matter.

For a given knol, it can be desired to know whether the knol is“top-level” (i.e., independently searchable) or just “content” (i.e., itwill not come up in a search as an entity in its own right, but it canbe indexed as content of a parent page). A “content” knol can beabandoned by a parent, i.e., no longer referenced by a parent page. Insome implementations, an abandoned knol is no longer visible aspublic-facing online content and is not findable in a web search, butmay be findable by reviewing past versions of a document.

Referring to FIG. 4A, an example graphical user interface 400 is shownwhereby an author of a first knol can link the first knol to a second,existing knol, either by naming the second knol or naming a URL toaccess the second knol (see user interface 410 in FIG. 4B). In theexample shown, a new knol is being linked to an existing knol entitled“The-Samoyed/Ray-Su-27354”. The properties listed in the title area 402,i.e., title, subtitle, author and date modified, can become a hyperlinkto the second knol. The URL can be a web address to access the secondknol. The contents properties 404 include the following. The imageproperty can be the first image included within the second knol. Thetable of contents can be algorithmically generated by traversing thesecond knol's contents. The abstract can be a snippet composed of thefirst few lines of the knol, following the title and subtitle. The fulltext can refer to including the entire second knol other than thoseknols that the second knol recursively includes, which can instead becoerced into the table of contents. The display properties 406 includedistinct appearance options. The inline appearance can be possible ifthe title area content is transcluded. The boxed appearance can take thetranscluded content and wrap it into a standardized frame with text flowaround it, e.g., magazine style. The section appearance can treat thetranscluded knol as a section within the parent knol.

Referring to FIG. 4C, an example graphical user interface 412 is shownwhere an author of the first knol can select a transclusion appearancefor the second knol to be transcluded in the first knol. Exampleappearances 414 a-d are shown.

Table 1 below shows some example knol page properties, including theproperty names, types, values and a description of each.

TABLE 1 Knol Page Properties Property Type Value Description TitleString Title of the page which can relate to the query that the knol isprimarily competing for (i.e., to be provided as the “best answer”).Subtitle String An optional subtitle for the page which can be used fordisambiguation. Role String Standard Indicates this is a standardcontent page, i.e., an ordinary knol. Role String Template Indicatesthis page is to be used and found as a template and not as a top-levelknol. Role String Author Indicates this page is an author's “home page”.Role String Group Indicates this page is a group's “home page”.Categories StringList A list of terms to which this belongs; these termsmay or may not be linked to other knols. Authors StringList List ofowner/admins. AuthorsPending StringList Transfers of ownership; need tobe confirmed by the recipient. AuthorsVisible Number The first n authorsare shown on the page. Contributors StringList A list of non-owners whohave rights to edit the knol. ContributorsPending StringList An offer topen a document to a contributor that needs to be confirmed by therecipient. ContributorsVisible Number The first n contributors can beshown on the page. RedirectTo String If this page is discontinued, thennon-owners who browse to it can get forwarded to a new page.Contribution/contributors String A list of those persons who haveprovided textual input to the knol; generally overlaps with the authors.Contribution/location String If text included in the knol came fromanother resource, e.g., copied from a book or other website, the sourcecan be identified and attributed. Contribution/tokens Number For eachcontributor or original source, this is the number of tokens contributedby the author. bannedReasons StringList If non-empty, this knol isbanned from display. For example, affiliate links, ads, buy buttons,spam, or spam may be reasons for a ban. The author can view and edit theknol, but the public cannot view the knol. Sections StringList A list ofthe nodeIDs of the sections. publishedVersion Integer Identifies theversion visible to the public.

The knol user interface can provide an author page including contentabout the author. Examples of content that can be included in an authorpage are: a picture of the author; author's name; statisticalinformation; author's profile; names of co-authors (and links to theirauthor pages); titles of knols authored by and/or contributed to by theauthor; a control to get an RSS feed of articles written by the author;and citations by the authors (and links thereto). The edit history ofthe particular author in relation to the knol can be viewed. In animplementation where author ratings are provided, the author's ratingcan be viewed. In one implementation, an aggregation of authors isreferred to as a “group”, and any groups to which the author is a membercan be identified.

When the author page is viewed by the author in “edit mode”, the authorcan view and edit many of his or her properties. For example, the authorcan edit the public-profile content. The author can edit accountpermissions, such as the default visibility and editability of a knol'spages and persons exempt from the defaults. The author can viewreviewers (i.e., people who have responded to the knol content) and sortsame by quality or recency. The author can invite or request someone towrite a knol or to write a review of pages of a knol of the author.Messages can be provided to the author in the edit mode, including thefollowing examples: a message about a suggested edit; notification of are-use of the author's content (e.g., by transclusion or text re-use);notification of changes in documents owned, watched or contributed to bythe author; an assertation of prior use of the author's content; atakedown demand; a takedown notification; a notification of change of atemplate used by the author; a quota/limit violation; an error message;an offer to transfer ownership; and bulk changes to properties.

Table 2 below shows examples of author page properties, including theproperty name, type and a description.

TABLE 2 Author Page Properties Property Type Description Name StringAuthor's externally visible name or nickname. Disambiguation String Zeroor more externally visible blobs of “disambiguation” text, for example,to authenticate credentials of the author. Picture String URL to imageof the author. Profile String User supplied text profile. Co-AuthorsStringList List of persons the author shares ownership of pages with.Knols/Author stringList Knols authored by the Author. Knols/contributorStringList Knols contributed to but not owned by the author.Knols/Edited StringList Knols the author has submitted edits to.Knols/Discussed StringList Knols the author has replied to in adiscussion. Knols/Reviewed StringList Knols the author has reviewed.rateLimitCreate Number Maximum frequency with which an author can createnew knols. rateLimitEdit Number Maximum frequency to edit knols.rateLimitMessage Number Maximum frequency to send messages to others.rateLimitInvite Number Maximum frequency to invite other authors.Notifications A collection of messages/alerts sent to the author.Solicitations A collection of messages/alerts sent by the author.

In one implementation, the owner of a knol may choose to display onlineadvertisements when displaying the knol. The owner typically collectsrevenue from advertisers, either directly or through a broker, fordisplaying the advertisements. In one example, the owner can participatein the AdSense advertising program provided by Google, Inc., whereinGoogle provides advertisements to display with the owner's knol. Theadvertisements can be selected to target an audience expected to beinterested in the content of the knol. If the knol has been contributedto by more than one author, then revenue generated from the onlineadvertisements can be shared between the authors. In one implementation,the author's page properties can include a property to allocate therevenue between the owners of knols to which the particular author isentitled to revenue share.

The invention and all of the functional operations described in thisspecification can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or incomputer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations of them.Apparatus of the invention can be implemented in a computer programproduct tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device forexecution by a programmable processor; and method steps of the inventioncan be performed by a programmable processor executing a program ofinstructions to perform functions of the invention by operating on inputdata and generating output.

The invention can be implemented advantageously in one or more computerprograms that are executable on a programmable system including at leastone programmable processor coupled to receive data and instructionsfrom, and to transmit data and instructions to, a data storage system,at least one input device, and at least one output device. Each computerprogram can be implemented in a high-level procedural or object-orientedprogramming language, or in assembly or machine language if desired; andin any case, the language can be a compiled or interpreted language.

Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and specialpurpose microprocessors. Generally, a processor will receiveinstructions and data from a read-only memory and/or a random accessmemory. Generally, a computer will include one or more mass storagedevices for storing data files; such devices include magnetic disks,such as internal hard disks and removable disks; a magneto-opticaldisks; and optical disks. Storage devices suitable for tangiblyembodying computer program instructions and data include all forms ofnon-volatile memory, including by way of example semiconductor memorydevices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic diskssuch as internal hard disks and removable disks; magneto-optical disks;and CD-ROM disks. Any of the foregoing can be supplemented by, orincorporated in, ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).

To provide for interaction with a user, the invention can be implementedon a computer system having a display device such as a monitor or LCDscreen for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and apointing device such as a mouse or a trackball by which the user canprovide input to the computer system. The computer system can beprogrammed to provide a graphical user interface through which computerprograms interact with users.

Referring now to FIG. 5, a schematic diagram of an example computersystem 500 is shown. The system 500 can be used for the operationsdescribed in association with the process 300 shown in FIG. 3, accordingto one implementation. For example, one or more of the systems 500 canbe used to implement the search server 101 (see FIGS. 1 and 2).

The system 500 includes a processor 510, a memory 520, a storage device530, and an input/output device 540. Each of the components 510, 520,530, and 540 can, for example, be interconnected using a system bus 550.The processor 510 is capable of processing instructions for executionwithin the system 500. In one implementation, the processor 510 is asingle-threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor 510is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 510 is capable ofprocessing instructions stored in the memory 520 or on the storagedevice 530 to display graphical information for a user interface on theinput/output device 540. In some embodiments, a parallel processing setof systems 500 connected over a network may be employed, clustered intoone or more server centers.

The memory 520 stores information within the system 500. In oneimplementation, the memory 520 is a computer-readable medium. In oneimplementation, the memory 520 is a volatile memory unit. In anotherimplementation, the memory 520 is a non-volatile memory unit.

The storage device 530 is capable of providing mass storage for thesystem 500. In one implementation, the storage device 530 is acomputer-readable medium. In various different implementations, thestorage device 530 can, for example, include a hard disk device, anoptical disk device, or some other large capacity storage device.

The input/output device 540 provides input/output operations for thesystem 500. In one implementation, the input/output device 540 includesa keyboard and/or pointing device. In another implementation, theinput/output device 540 includes a display unit for displaying graphicaluser interfaces.

A module, as the term is used throughout this application, can be apiece of hardware that encapsulates a function, can be firmware or canbe a software application. A module can perform one or more functions,and one piece of hardware, firmware or software can perform thefunctions of more than one of the modules described herein. Similarly,more than one piece of hardware, firmware and/or software can be used toperform the function of a single module described herein.

It is to be understood the implementations are not limited to particularsystems or processes described which may, of course, vary. It is also tobe understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose ofdescribing particular implementations only, and is not intended to belimiting. As used in this specification, the singular forms “a”, “an”and “the” include plural referents unless the content clearly indicatesotherwise. Thus, for example, reference to “a publisher” includes two ormore publishers and reference to “an ad” includes a combination of twoor more or different types of ads.

A number of implementations have been described. Nevertheless, it willbe understood that various modifications may be made without departingfrom the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, otherimplementations are within the scope of this application.

1. A method for providing a collaborative editing model for onlinecontent, comprising: receiving user-created online content comprising afirst public-facing version of the content; receiving a set of suggestededits to the online content from a plurality of users, where eachsuggested edit in the set relates to the first public-facing version;providing the set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of theonline content, wherein the editor is visually notified of differencesbetween the first public-facing version of the content and the suggestededits and is notified of conflicts existing between two or moresuggested edits where a conflict exists if a first suggested edit cannotco-exist with a second suggested edit; receiving input from the editorresolving conflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in theset; modifying the first public-facing version of the content based onthe set of suggested edits and the input from the editor to generate asecond public-facing version of the content; and carrying over suggestededits from the set that were not accepted nor rejected and that are notin conflict with the second public-facing version of the content forfuture editor input accepting or rejecting the carried over suggestededits in relation to the second public-facing version of the content. 2.The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving additional inputfrom the editor comprising additional edits to the online content;wherein the second public-facing version of the content is further basedon the additional edits.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein theauthorized editor is the author of the user-created online content. 4.The method of claim 1, wherein the authorized editor is a collaboratordesignated by an author of the user-created online content.
 5. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a search query foronline content satisfying criteria specified by the search query;determining the user-created online content satisfies the criteria; andproviding the user-created online content in response to the searchquery.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein if input is received from theeditor to hold a suggested edit, the suggested edit remains pending withrespect to the second public-facing version of the online content. 7.The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a conflict betweena first suggested edit and a second suggested edit; notifying the editorof the conflict; and receiving additional input from the editorproviding a resolution to the conflict.
 8. The method of claim 1,wherein providing the suggested edits to the editor includes providing amarked-up version of the online content showing the suggested editsrelative to the first public-facing version of the online content. 9.The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving an entry to adiscussion thread associated with the online content.
 10. A systemproviding a collaborative editing model for online content comprising: adata store configured to store user-created online content; a suggestededits module configured to receive a set of suggested edits to theonline content where the set of suggested edits is provided by aplurality of users and each suggested edit relates to a firstpublic-facing version of the online content; and an editing moduleconfigured to: provide the set of suggested edits to an authorizededitor of the online content; visually notify the editor differencesbetween the first public-facing version of the content and the set ofsuggested edits and of conflicts existing between two or more suggestededits; receive input from the editor resolving conflicts and acceptingor rejecting suggested edits in the set; modify a first public-facingversion of the online content based on the suggested edits and the inputfrom the editor to generate a second public-facing version; and carryover suggested edits from the set that were not accepted nor rejectedand are not in conflict with the second public-facing version of thecontent for future editor input accepting or rejecting the carried oversuggested edits in relation to the second public-facing version of thecontent.
 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the editing module isfurther configured to: receive additional input from the editorcomprising additional edits to the online content; wherein the secondpublic-facing version is further based on the additional edits.
 12. Thesystem of claim 10, wherein the editing module is further configured to:detect a conflict between a first suggested edit and a second suggestededit; notify the editor of the conflict; and receive additional inputfrom the editor providing a resolution to the conflict.
 13. The systemof claim 10, further comprising: a search engine configured to: receivea search query for online content satisfying criteria specified by thesearch query; determine the user-created online content satisfies thecriteria; and provide the user-created online content in response to thesearch query.
 14. The system of claim 10, wherein the editing module isfurther configured to: provide a marked-up version of the online contentshowing the suggested edits relative to the first public-facing versionof the online content.
 15. The system of claim 10, wherein the suggestededits module is further configured to receive an entry to a discussionthread associated with the online content.
 16. A computer-readablemedium having instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by aprocessor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:receiving user-created online content comprising a first public-facingversion of the content; receiving a set of suggested edits to the onlinecontent from a plurality of users, where each suggested edit in the setrelates to the first public-facing version; providing the set ofsuggested edits to an authorized editor of the online content, whereinthe editor is visually notified of differences between the firstpublic-facing version of the content and the suggested edits and isnotified of conflicts existing between two or more suggested edits wherea conflict exists if a first suggested edit cannot co-exist with asecond suggested edit; receiving input from the editor resolvingconflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in the set;modifying the first public-facing version of the content based on theset of suggested edits and the input from the editor to generate asecond public-facing version of the content; and carrying over suggestededits from the set that were not accepted nor rejected and are not inconflict with the second public-facing version of the content for futureeditor input accepting or rejecting the carried over suggested edits inrelation to the second public-facing version of the content.
 17. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 16, the operations further comprising;receiving additional input from the editor comprising additional editsto the online content; wherein the second public-facing version of thecontent is further based on the additional edits.
 18. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the authorized editor isthe author of the user-created online content.
 19. The computer-readablemedium of claim 16, wherein the authorized editor is a collaboratordesignated by an author of the user-created online content.
 20. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 16, the operations further comprising:receiving a search query for online content satisfying criteriaspecified by the search query; determining the user-created onlinecontent satisfies the criteria; and providing the user-created onlinecontent in response to the search query.
 21. The computer-readablemedium of claim 16, wherein if input is received from the editor to holda suggested edit, the suggested edit remains pending with respect to thesecond public-facing version of the online content.
 22. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 16, the operations further comprising:detecting a conflict between a first suggested edit and a secondsuggested edit; notifying the editor of the conflict; and receivingadditional input from the editor providing a resolution to the conflict.23. The computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein providing thesuggested edits to the editor includes providing a marked-up version ofthe online content showing the suggested edits relative to the firstpublic-facing version of the online content.
 24. The computer-readablemedium of claim 16, the operations further comprising: receiving anentry to a discussion thread associated with the online content.
 25. Asystem comprising: a processor; a storage device coupled to theprocessor and configurable for storing instructions, which, whenexecuted by the processor cause the processor to perform operationscomprising: receiving user-created online content comprising a firstpublic-facing version of the content; receiving a set of suggested editsto the online content from a plurality of users, where each suggestededit in the set relates to the first public-facing version; providingthe set of suggested edits to an authorized editor of the onlinecontent, wherein the editor is visually notified of differences betweenthe first public-facing version of the content and the suggested editsand is notified of conflicts existing between two or more suggestededits where a conflict exists if a first suggested edit cannot co-existwith a second suggested edit; receiving input from the editor resolvingconflicts and accepting or rejecting suggested edits in the set;modifying the first public-facing version of the content based on theset of suggested edits and the input from the editor to generate asecond public-facing version of the content; and carrying over suggestededits from the set that were not accepted nor rejected and are not inconflict with the second public-facing version of the content for futureeditor input accepting or rejecting the carried over suggested edits inrelation to the second public-facing version of the content.
 26. Thesystem of claim 25, the operations further comprising; receivingadditional input from the editor comprising additional edits to theonline content; wherein the second public-facing version of the contentis further based on the additional edits.
 27. The system of claim 25,wherein the authorized editor is the author of the user-created onlinecontent.
 28. The system of claim 25, wherein the authorized editor is acollaborator designated by an author of the user-created online content.29. The system of claim 25, the operations further comprising: receivinga search query for online content satisfying criteria specified by thesearch query; determining the user-created online content satisfies thecriteria; and providing the user-created online content in response tothe search query.
 30. The system of claim 25, wherein if input isreceived from the editor to hold a suggested edit, the suggested editremains pending with respect to the second public-facing version of theonline content.
 31. The system of claim 25, the operations furthercomprising: detecting a conflict between a first suggested edit and asecond suggested edit; notifying the editor of the conflict; andreceiving additional input from the editor providing a resolution to theconflict.
 32. The system of claim 25, wherein providing the suggestededits to the editor includes providing a marked-up version of the onlinecontent showing the suggested edits relative to the first public-facingversion of the online content.
 33. The system of claim 25, theoperations further comprising: receiving an entry to a discussion threadassociated with the online content.